Research Procedure

To ensure transparency of the research, this section details procedures for the study, including the sampling strategy, recruitment of participants, and efforts made to ensure participants anonymity.

Sampling Strategy

Strauss and Corbin (1998) argued that before recruitment it is necessary to establish who will be recruited, where from, the type of data that will be collected, and how it will be collected. Given the intention to create a substantive theoretical model, an expert purposive sampling strategy was chosen to recruit participants for the study –

74 with the choice of substantive theory being based on three reasons. First, MMOs are interesting virtual spaces in their own right (e.g. Use of Avatars, etc.). Second, given the differences between MMOs and other virtual spaces, trying to draw comparisons might be spurious, due to the differences in those spaces. Third, given the qualitative

methodology used, there was no need for points of comparison, on the understanding that the theory was only to be applied to those areas for which it was created. This expert sampling strategy sought a particular target group for participation, on the premise that only that group would be able to provide the information required (Trochim, 2006). Typically, in GT sampling and analysis occurs simultaneously until theoretical saturation has occurred (Miles & Huberman, 1994), but in the thesis data collection was ahead of the analysis. As indicated earlier however, theoretical saturation can occur even with archival data, since the researcher follows all paths until no new material is revealed.

Recruiting Participants

Initially, the author’s contacts in the game WoW were drawn upon. A post was placed on the Guild forum, which resulted in 12 participants volunteering. In addition, an additional 17 participants were obtained through game forums (detailed in appendix III). In all instances, initial forum messages provided information about the study, contact details, plus reassurances that the study had been passed by the ethical board of Nottingham Trent University (NTU), and finally a request for participants. It was important to ensure that no minors were admitted into the study, so it was clarified that potential participants had to be over 18 years old.

At this stage no further information was provided, as it was thought that

providing excessive information might overwhelm potential participants and potentially bias the data. For posts placed on public domain game forums, the forum admin was contacted prior to placing the post, asking permission to do so. In all cases where the admin replied, permission was given; where the admin did not reply, no post was placed.

In total, 29 participants were recruited for the first study. There were 13 female participants (45%) and 16 male participants (55%), with an age range of 19 to 53. There

75 were 18 synchronous messenger-based interviews (62%), and 11 asynchronous email-based ones (38%).

Anonymity, Confidentiality, and Informed Consent

It was important that the study followed appropriate ethical principles, as laid out by the British Psychological Society (BPS) and guidelines of NTU. In accordance with this, a participant information sheet, informed consent form, and debrief sheet were developed. The participant information sheet provided information about the study, what would be required of them, how to withdraw their data if they so wished, how the data would be stored, who would have access to it, that the conversation would be recorded, and finally that their data would be anonymous, but not confidential. As Bassett and O’Riordan (2002) wrote, the issue of anonymity is particularly important and as such, pseudonyms were used for all participants.

Having been informed of the purpose of the study, the consent form recorded the participants’ willingness to take part and finally, the debrief form recapped the purpose of the study and why it had been completed, and provided contact information for the researcher, should the participant wish to discuss anything further. In addition, the contact details of the thesis supervisor were provided, plus a contact number for a suitable support line if this was required. In all cases, these documents were emailed to the participant at the appropriate times, so that they could provide fully informed consent, and were appropriately supported after the research had ended.

The data from the study was stored on a password protected computer, which was only accessible to the researcher; the data itself could only be viewed by the researcher and supervisory team. If a participant wished to withdraw their data, they only had to provide their chosen identifier and all data would have been removed from the study. Up to the date of writing, no participants have asked for their data to be removed from the first study.

Since both synchronous and asynchronous interview techniques were used, separate ethics procedures were required. For synchronous interviews it was necessary to type out the participant information at the start of each interview, with the

participant required to type ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to each question. Having addressed this

76 information, each participant was asked specifically whether they wished to take part – a question they were required to answer.

Eynon, Fry, and Schroeder (2008) argued that in practice gaining absolutely fully informed consent can be complicated, and that with online ethics the researcher needs to be sensitive to the context of the work. Sin (2005) agreed, proposing that a more reflexive approach to informed consent was required, particularly in the context of interviews where consent must be maintained throughout. In the interviews of study one, care was taken to stay aware of the state of mind of the participant, checking that there were no signs of discomfort or irritation with the questioning, as indicated by long pauses in replying or avoidance of the question.

Kraut et al. (2003) argued that one mean of attempting to ensure only adult participants such as asking for credit card information, though they warn that such checks might increase drop-out rates; however, such checks are marred by the fact that there are few means of verifying the truth of the information provided. As Pittenger (2003) argued, it may be that verifying identity only becomes an issue when

controversial topics are being discussed or the study has higher than average risks for the participants.

For the asynchronous interviews, the participant information sheet and informed consent form were emailed to the participant. Having read both sheets, the participant was required to reply to a series of questions embedded within the email confirming that they understood the study and consented to take part, and then return the document by email.